92.20.50.154

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Arctic Kangaroo 12:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This user has continued to prove my estimation about them totally correct, on their talkpage, they are acting as if they did not know this was gravedancing, so I will follow through on my promise to create an account from this IP when the block expires tomorrow, and I will have them dealt with for their obvious trolling, distruption and bad faith. 92.20.50.154 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

92.20.50.154 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept that my comments towards Arctic Kangaroo were not within the civility guidelines, however I do not feel that the block for personal attacks is justified, since no attacks towards Arctic Kangaroo were made. Any and all comments were directed towards the ACTION made, which I feel is very much in line with the "Comment on the contribution, not the contributor" guideline. I also do not feel the "Harassment" tag is approptiate either. At the very least, I would ask administrators to remove the above block notice as blatant gravedancing, and then consider my request with an open mind.

Decline reason:

Every single edit in your editing history is aggressive and belligerent, and there is no evidence that you intend to do anything more constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What utter tosh. None of my edits are "aggressive". I knew this website was degenerated, I never realised just how far dishonesty has pervaded through the membership.

Unblock request

• [1] In reply to the dishonest block decline, my edit was: "What utter tosh. None of my edits are "aggressive". I knew this website was degenerated, I never realised just how far dishonesty has pervaded through the membership."
• [2] In reply to the gravedancing involved and as of yet unpunished Arctic Kangaroo, my edit was: "This user has continued to prove my estimation about them totally correct, on their talkpage, they are acting as if they did not know this was gravedancing, so I will follow through on my promise to create an account from this IP when the block expires tomorrow, and I will have them dealt with for their obvious trolling, distruption and bad faith."
• [3] This was my first unblock request, the text of which can be seen above.
• [4] This was a message I left to User:Thumperward, I was apologising for leaving my last comment in the debate on ani after he had closed it, by mistake. My edit was: "I didn't realise you had already closed the discussion before adding my last message, I should have been more careful and checked first. Kind regards"
• [5] This was the comment I made to Arctic Kangaroo. This is the only edit which matches the accusations laid against me by JamesBWatson when he unfairly declined my block request, the comment was as follows: "Users like you are the reason why I decided to leave here about 5 years ago. I cannot believe how utterly rude and disingenous you have been. You only took that user to wp:ani because they refused your help. Then you allowed their messages to be deleted which quite clearly show they are willing to undergo teaching, but because it wasn't from you, you didn't like that did you? Without a doubt the removal of barnstars and reaction to the welcome message was beyond the pale, and should have been dealt with by a short admin block, but your dishonesty surrounding this matter is utterly repulsive. I am very, very tempted to create an account just to have you dealt with for your actions". I fail to see how this was any worse than what gets said and ignored by many other editors, but I apologised for it and made clear that I understood why I was blocked, which guidelines I broke and that I accepted my mistake.
• [6] This was the last comment on the ani debate, and the one for which I apologised to Thumperward because it was posted after he closed the debate. The full post read: "What should you have done? Try leaving them alone like they asked, that's usually a good start, then try not allowing messages that could have vindicated them to be deleted from your talk page. He/she did not want your help. At that juncture, you COULD have advised him about how to contact uninvolved editors, but instead you chose to take it personally and spite him by taking him here. As for "rudely", would that be like launching an edit war on his/her own talk page?"
• [7] This was a comment in the debate. It reads: "I'm not commenting "on behalf" of anyone, I'm just trying to come to terms with why this situation devolved so rapidly. I wasn't aware that IP's were forbidden from contributing here? Or are you trying to suggest some sort of ulterior motive? My comment about Wikipedia review was meant to state that he/she probably had some sort of idea about how attitudes work here, which has been proven absolutely right, sadly. I like the way the original point of my last message was ignored. Or don't you see it as strange that a user who refused help from an editor has now been dragged here for being distruptive by the very same editor he/she clearly had an issue with? And don't you find it even slightly off that the very message asking for help was deleted by an involved outside user? Or are you more interested in playing semantics? As for the reaction to the welcome message, it was wrong and probably should have bee dealt with, but not like this"
• [8] This is another comment on the debate, which reads: "Ah, so that is what it is? Because he knew about wikipedia review? That explains why you took the unilateral actions of deleting both his user page and talk page, as well as imposing an indefinite block and removing his ability to contest the block. It isn't about beligerence at all, it's because he knew how things worked here. Sad. I genuinely believe that given the chances he/she would have been a good editor, that is why things like mentorship exist. As for knowing about ani, it isn't that hard. This isn't some sort of hidden page that only a select few have access to. The way I see it is this; the user wasn't familiar with how we deal with things here, so he reacted badly to a welcome message. Then, another group of users decided to pile onto them, posting repeated warnings, then reposting them despite being asked not to do so. It seems that the same group of users were also deleting his messages to other users explaining why he was being so beligerant, including one here the user says they are willing to be helped, but not by Arctic Kangaroo, which is not what I would call unreasonable given that Arctic Kangaroo and his group of friends refused to leave them alone"
• [9] This is where I made an addendum to the edit listed below, it can if you like be considered part of the same edit because it is part of the first comment I made in the debate, the edit adds "Rubbish like this is why I stopped contributing here." to my original comment.
• [10] This is my first comment on the debate, and was made before the addendum listed above, it reads "He wasn't even given a chance, and now he can't even contest the block. All he wanted was for three users to stop posting on his talkpage. He didn't want help from this Arctic Kangaro, but AK wouldn't leave him alone. When AK was told not to offer his help, he came here out of spite. Good job, another potential editor lost."

Please note that there is one other edit listed on my contributions, to an article called Ring Ring, But this was made in 2012 and as this is an IP, not by myself. I have also not listed the edit made to create this unblock request.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

92.20.50.154 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

According to the administrator who declined my last unblock request, "Every single one of my edits has been aggressive and belligerent, and there is no evidence that you intend to do anything more constructive", so for the benefit of that admin, I have listed every single one of my edits above. Please note all but the one comment resulting in this dishonest block is neither "aggressive" or "belligerent". Given the above, how can any administrator say that 'all' my edits are "Aggressive and beligerent"? Only one was, and that was the one I apologised for in the first unblock request. I do not feel I have been treated fairly at all, nobody should have to go through and detail every single one of their edits because one administrator has been dishonest. In relation to Arctic Kangaroo, I apologise for the comment made to Arctic Kangaroo which was against the wp:civility rules, I should not have even made the comment because it was not helpful or constructive, in the future, I will disengage from matters once they have come to their conclusion.

Decline reason:

If you want to be unblocked, you'll have to make the request from your original account, whatever that happens to be. Talk page revoked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry, I was mistaken in saying "every single edit ", as this one wasn't aggressive. However, the overall picture must be clear to anyone who checks your editing history. If you really sincerely do not see your edits that way, then you are so unable to view your own writing objectively that I doubt that you will find it easy to fit in here. (Incidentally, accusing me of being "dishonest" in your unblock request is not, I think, likely to help your request.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Every single edit I have made is listed above. Aside from the one clearly marked out and referred to, none breach any rules or conduct guidelines. I am firm in my words but not, as you described "Aggressive and beligerent". I find that dishonest. My unblock requests also detail the fact that I am very clearly aware of where I failed to meet such guidelines. Please don't think this is a personal matter, I admire your willingness to see the sanctity of this website preserved, and if I was in your position, I'm sure I would be doing much the same as you, but I disagree with you on this matter and only this matter.

---